Case study: JCIT vs. Ajay Sharma. Read NFAC introduction to the case & its findings on Rs. 1.95 crores addition on account of unexplained investment under Section 69 of Income Tax Act.
ITAT Chennai’s ruling in the case of Fathima Jewellers vs. DCIT clarifies that excess gold jewellery stock found during a survey isn’t unexplained investment under IT Act.
The Income Tax Appellate Tribunal (ITAT) in Pune deleted the penalty in the Jyoti Paper Udyog Ltd Vs. ACIT case due to non-production of Form No. 3CEB under Section 92E.
CESTAT Chandigarh rules that General Sales Agent (GSA) commissions received by Bird Travels P Ltd. from foreign airlines for promoting and marketing services are not subject to service tax.
ITAT Pune directs reconsideration of an appeal by Gajanana Developers against disallowance of deduction under Section 80IB(10) of the Income Tax Act. Find out more.
CESTAT Ahmedabad ruled that mis-declaration allegations without complete evidence and violation of natural justice cannot be upheld.
In a case of Vikram Dhirani vs. DCIT, ITAT Delhi rules in favor of the assessee, deleting the penalty under section 271AAA due to the lack of opportunity to explain undisclosed income source during search proceedings.
Neeraj Gas Movers successfully argues for the validity of a rectified partnership deed, leading to the approval of salary and interest claims by ITAT.
DCIT vs. Krishan Kumar case: ITAT Delhi dismisses appeal by the Department regarding share transaction, ruling it doesn’t fall under the CBDT Circular exception.
In the case of Shekhar Bharti vs. ITO (ITAT Delhi), the article explores how the valuation report was discredited, affecting the tax assessment.
| M | T | W | T | F | S | S |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 |
| 8 | 9 | 10 | 11 | 12 | 13 | 14 |
| 15 | 16 | 17 | 18 | 19 | 20 | 21 |
| 22 | 23 | 24 | 25 | 26 | 27 | 28 |
| 29 | 30 | 31 | ||||
